But I believe it matters the most at GS or major tournament level. Andy is 2-1 vs Federer (Olympics and AO vs Wimbledon) and 2-2 vs Djokovic (Olympics, USO vs AO, 2013 AO). I took only the past 12/13 months into account because thatís the most solid base. Who won many GSs before doesnít kick in at this point. Most recent performance is the most accurate foundation.

WTC is a bigger tournament that the Olympics, so 1-1 if you include only majors or 2-2 if you include the second biggest tournaments. Still equal.

WTF is big but not bigger than the Olympics and shouldn't be.

Always has been thus far, as for the future - who can tell? Olympics has more prestige now than in 1996 when Sampras among others voluntarily skipped the tournament, leaving it with what most resembled an ATP250 draw, but it hasn't quite reached WTC level yet. If it will in the future? Who knows? We'll have to wait and see.

Thing is, only Djokovic is leading the pack with Federer behind him. that's the fact. Murray fans conveniently keep forgetting about all Murray's loses last year (look how many points he is behind Fed, rankings do not lie). All they (Murray tards) talk is the USO 2012 (wind, anyone ) and Olympics Shmolimpics which is a completely irrelevant tournament when it comes to tennis. Nobody cares, and I don't care when players say 'oh, it is so important'. If it's that important it would give more than 750 points. Any master tournament is more prestigious.

Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro all the big names were there to play this event, so I definitely rate it higher than WTF where the field is not even remotely as big. Definitely had a bigger crowd and bigger atmosphere than WTF.

Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro all the big names were there to play this event, so I definitely rate it higher than WTF where the field is not even remotely as big. Definitely had a bigger crowd and bigger atmosphere than WTF.

I really don't know what to say any more. I'm being logical, and you just don't make any sense again. Sorry, WTF 1500 points, much better crowd, 8 best players in the world.. Olimpycs (when it comes to tennis) - glorifying exho, like it or not. you can't even defend your 750 points.

now simpler math: 1500>750. is this correct? People really, start use LOGIC. it's not that hard.

It isn't science, but what's behind the kind of question this thread poses, isn't some robotic restatement of the rankings, but rather identifying of a trend. Rankings can be disingenuous with regard to how players are doing, they can sometimes camouflage recent form in the way they refer to a twelve month period.

From last years US Open it's all been about Djoko and Murray, they're clearly the dominant players at the moment-in that sense they have moved away from the pack. Crucially though, the pack can catch up-Nadal's re-entry on to the tennis scene could be the start of that-who knows!

Logged

I am a lighthouse worn by the weather and the wavesAnd though I'm empty I still warn the sailors on their way

It isn't science, but what's behind the kind of question this thread poses, isn't some robotic restatement of the rankings, but rather identifying of a trend. Rankings can be disingenuous with regard to how players are doing, they can sometimes camouflage recent form in the way they refer to a twelve month period.

From last years US Open it's all been about Djoko and Murray, they're clearly the dominant players at the moment-in that sense they have moved away from the pack. Crucially though, the pack can catch up-Nadal's re-entry on to the tennis scene could be the start of that-who knows!

yes and no. Djokovic won every tournament he entered after the USO except that tank in Paris. Murray did well but didn't win anything. However, wait for the clay season and then we'll talk.

But I believe it matters the most at GS or major tournament level. Andy is 2-1 vs Federer (Olympics and AO vs Wimbledon) and 2-2 vs Djokovic (Olympics, USO vs AO, 2013 AO). I took only the past 12/13 months into account because thats the most solid base. Who won many GSs before doesnt kick in at this point. Most recent performance is the most accurate foundation.

WTC is a bigger tournament that the Olympics, so 1-1 if you include only majors or 2-2 if you include the second biggest tournaments. Still equal.

WTF is big but not bigger than the Olympics and shouldn't be.

Why??? WTF is in fact worth in points even more than the Olympics... You have to beat the best of the best there to take the title... Since when WTF a minor tournament??? You are starting to sound a lot like Shankar...

It isn't science, but what's behind the kind of question this thread poses, isn't some robotic restatement of the rankings, but rather identifying of a trend. Rankings can be disingenuous with regard to how players are doing, they can sometimes camouflage recent form in the way they refer to a twelve month period.

From last years US Open it's all been about Djoko and Murray, they're clearly the dominant players at the moment-in that sense they have moved away from the pack. Crucially though, the pack can catch up-Nadal's re-entry on to the tennis scene could be the start of that-who knows!

You are talking about leading the pack based on USO alone??? What about AO, RG and Wimbledon?? Murray got to the finals of this AO, last year it was Nadal, he lost in the quarters at RG... I mean, you can't say BOTH are leading the back based on one major (USO)... As I said before... NOLE is leading the pack, what is it with you that you have to put Murray in a place he is not YET entitled to be??

Jesse james post is about right on the pack,plus Nole has played on his best Slam court in 2013.Don't forget he only won 1 Slam last year,let's see how the rest of this year pans out.Nole had one very big year thats it so far,can he keep it up & is he drug free?

No Sid, Mav is right here. Nole did win only one slam but he also won many masters, WTF and other tournaments. Murray won a slam and nothrsing else. As I said Olympic tournament is irrelevant when we look at the big picture, you can't even defend points and it gives less points than masters. Players play 52 weeks, and you are forgetting that Andy did nothing during the clay season.

That's, as Mav siad, Djokovic is moving ahead of pack as he is so far ahead of everyone. Murray is not there yet but I certainly see him joining Nole or next year if he improves his clay game. Lendl would probably help him out a lot with clay.

The title 'Djokovic and Murray move away from the pack' is simply not correct. If Murray starts winning masters and more slams we'll talk. Yes, Roger is not getting any younger and I don't think he cares about rankings that much but he is still going strong. Nadal is a huge puzzle atm.

However, I'd say that Djokovic and Murray will be dominating tennis in next couple of year and they are future of tennis.

Ranking points do not lie. They tell a very precise story. Murray has to outperform Federer and get to that #2 position, but not for 2 weeks. He needs to hold it for a year or so firmly to establish himself as the second best player in the world. His right now around 2000 points behind Fed if I remember correctly.

Don't forget Murray's won many masters IE more than one over the years.Oh & he has taken Nole out in some of them.Talking on Masters when Murray & Nole have played on a Hardcourt Murray's taken Nole out 4 times.Nole has taken Murray out Twice since 2008.The 2007 wins for nole you can have,cos Murray's wrist was knackered,Murray was know where near his best then.By the way i think Murray is better than Nole on a quick hardcourt.

Don't forget Murray's won many masters IE more than one over the years.Oh & he has taken Nole out in some of them.Talking on Masters when Murray & Nole have played on a Hardcourt Murray's taken Nole out 4 times.Nole has taken Murray out Twice since 2008.The 2007 wins for nole you can have,cos Murray's wrist was knackered,Murray was know where near his best then.By the way i think Murray is better than Nole on a quick hardcourt.

Sid, I know all of that, but forget about 2007/8/9. We are talking about now and where Murray is heading to. I was referring to last year where Murray failed to win a single master and I you know that. I firmly believe that the key for his success will be CLAY. He must improve his game on clay.

I'm talking about what Murray needs to do to get to that number #2 and stay there, so that Nole/Murray can rule the world, like Fed/Rafa used to for years and nobody was able to touch them. cheers mate

he is working hard. that is all anyone can ask for. he does not have nole`e movement of death but he can compensate:

1. develop a more dominating serve2. play a little more high risk by playing more first strike tennis3. become a master volleyer and be willing to attack the net more. and this is really step #2 since he will need it if he wants to play more first strike tennis.

But I believe it matters the most at GS or major tournament level. Andy is 2-1 vs Federer (Olympics and AO vs Wimbledon) and 2-2 vs Djokovic (Olympics, USO vs AO, 2013 AO). I took only the past 12/13 months into account because thatís the most solid base. Who won many GSs before doesnít kick in at this point. Most recent performance is the most accurate foundation.

WTC is a bigger tournament that the Olympics, so 1-1 if you include only majors or 2-2 if you include the second biggest tournaments. Still equal.

WTF is big but not bigger than the Olympics and shouldn't be.

Why??? WTF is in fact worth in points even more than the Olympics... You have to beat the best of the best there to take the title... Since when WTF a minor tournament??? You are starting to sound a lot like Shankar...

She's probably a fan of other sports where Olympics is the single biggest event, like track-and-field, swimming, gymnastics, rowing, kayaking etc and just projecting from there. And forgetting Olympics is not even a comma in the football calendar, and not exactly the biggest goal for cyclists (except track cyclists), basketball players, hockey players.... one can't simply say the Olympics are of crucial importance, it varies from sport to sport.

Why??? WTF is in fact worth in points even more than the Olympics... You have to beat the best of the best there to take the title... Since when WTF a minor tournament??? You are starting to sound a lot like Shankar...

Sent from my Optimus 2X using Tapatalk 2

The problem with this whole argument is the underlying agenda as always. For example, if either Djokovic or Federer had won the Olympics, then you would have taken this into account as well Ė as either as big a tournament as WTF or perhaps bigger.

But letís take a look anyway - other than the points, what else makes WTF bigger than the Olympics? All the top players apart from Nadal were there at the Olympics. In fact, the semi-final lineups at the Olympics were just as good as WTF; in fact, the line up at the Olympics were better than the WTF one, where we saw Murray vs Djokovic & Federer vs Del Potro. On the other hand, WTF offered Federer vs Murray & Djokovic vs Del Potro. Del Potro is never a good matchup for Djokovic.

As to the rest of the field, in reality, they donít make any difference given the two surfaces. Tipservic, Tsonga are no match for Murray. Berdych poses some danger but not to the point where it would change the whole outcome. It has yet to happen. Murray played Djokovic in the RR and so he did at the Olympics semi and that match was more meaningful than the WTF RR match. You lose in any round, you lose the tournament.

As to Djokovic, only Murray was the problem figure or posed danger to him in the RR. On the other hand, Murray straight setted Djokovic in the Olympics semi and knocked him out of the tournament.

Federer had only Del Potro in his half at WTF who could pose danger but same was at the Olympics. He took Federer out and Federer was out of the tournament. Wasnít given a second shot at life there unlike their WTF RR match. He owns Tipsy and Ferrer.

So as I see it, Olympics had the same bunch of players who faced off each other in the end with far more risks. If Federer avoided playing Berdych at the Olympics then so he did at the WTF as well. Yes, itís the best of the best format but we can see one too many holes there as well because of the RR format. It not only saves your life, it gives you a 2nd chance in life unlike any other tournament.

Another point to make is that, players were far more healthy at the Olympics than at the WTF. The quality at WTF was lacking. Letís not forget 2011 WTF where most of the players were completely exhausted and dropped like flies at the very start of the tournament. So on the superficial level, it seems heavy when you say itís best of the best and in terms of points as well, but in reality, the tournament lacks depth because of the loopholes and quality because of the players already being out of gas. But more importantly, the field at the Olympics is just as strong and the format is far more dangerous.

Even the Commentators (both ESPN team and the Brit comms) when they were talking about the recent past results at the AO, they mentioned the Olympics as the Ďbigí one along with the GS results. Never once they mentioned WTF. But of course, if either Federer or Djokovic had won the Olympics, we wouldnít be having this discussion in the first place.

No underlying issues at all. If Djokovic had won gold I would've said the same thing. Olympics are completely irrelevant exho event if you look at the big picture. There is a very good reason that tennis hadn't been a part of Olympics for a long time. People again, think with your brain and use your logic. Your 'emotional opinion' very often does NOT make any sense.

and Emma, your comments about the WTF, like really, so silly and not logical that I simply have nothing to say. no point.

Why??? WTF is in fact worth in points even more than the Olympics... You have to beat the best of the best there to take the title... Since when WTF a minor tournament??? You are starting to sound a lot like Shankar...

Sent from my Optimus 2X using Tapatalk 2

The problem with this whole argument is the underlying agenda as always. For example, if either Djokovic or Federer had won the Olympics, then you would have taken this into account as well Ė as either as big a tournament as WTF or perhaps bigger.

But letís take a look anyway - other than the points, what else makes WTF bigger than the Olympics? All the top players apart from Nadal were there at the Olympics. In fact, the semi-final lineups at the Olympics were just as good as WTF; in fact, the line up at the Olympics were better than the WTF one, where we saw Murray vs Djokovic & Federer vs Del Potro. On the other hand, WTF offered Federer vs Murray & Djokovic vs Del Potro. Del Potro is never a good matchup for Djokovic.

If you want to avoid being accused of having an underlying agenda, then you can link to an old post where you state a similar claim, long before Murray got his gold medal.

Strength of draw is not a strong argument, not unless you also think Indian Wells and Miami are more prestigious than WTF. They had lineups without holes in them. In IW, Roddick was 30th seed and he was also ranked 30 in the world the week before. Doesn't get any better than that.

Why??? WTF is in fact worth in points even more than the Olympics... You have to beat the best of the best there to take the title... Since when WTF a minor tournament??? You are starting to sound a lot like Shankar...

Sent from my Optimus 2X using Tapatalk 2

The problem with this whole argument is the underlying agenda as always. For example, if either Djokovic or Federer had won the Olympics, then you would have taken this into account as well Ė as either as big a tournament as WTF or perhaps bigger.

But letís take a look anyway - other than the points, what else makes WTF bigger than the Olympics? All the top players apart from Nadal were there at the Olympics. In fact, the semi-final lineups at the Olympics were just as good as WTF; in fact, the line up at the Olympics were better than the WTF one, where we saw Murray vs Djokovic & Federer vs Del Potro. On the other hand, WTF offered Federer vs Murray & Djokovic vs Del Potro. Del Potro is never a good matchup for Djokovic.

If you want to avoid being accused of having an underlying agenda, then you can link to an old post where you state a similar claim, long before Murray got his gold medal.

Strength of draw is not a strong argument, not unless you also think Indian Wells and Miami are more prestigious than WTF. They had lineups without holes in them. In IW, Roddick was 30th seed and he was also ranked 30 in the world the week before. Doesn't get any better than that.

WTF offers more points and thatís all it offers. I absolutely fail to see how itís more prestigious than the Masters. All the Masters (and GSs) have knockout system and similar fields therefore, as Iíve mentioned already, the risks/stakes are much higher. And if you say ďStrength of draw is not a strong argumentĒ then you lose the argument right there. It is essentially the single most valid argument there is.

Why??? WTF is in fact worth in points even more than the Olympics... You have to beat the best of the best there to take the title... Since when WTF a minor tournament??? You are starting to sound a lot like Shankar...

Sent from my Optimus 2X using Tapatalk 2

The problem with this whole argument is the underlying agenda as always. For example, if either Djokovic or Federer had won the Olympics, then you would have taken this into account as well Ė as either as big a tournament as WTF or perhaps bigger.

But letís take a look anyway - other than the points, what else makes WTF bigger than the Olympics? All the top players apart from Nadal were there at the Olympics. In fact, the semi-final lineups at the Olympics were just as good as WTF; in fact, the line up at the Olympics were better than the WTF one, where we saw Murray vs Djokovic & Federer vs Del Potro. On the other hand, WTF offered Federer vs Murray & Djokovic vs Del Potro. Del Potro is never a good matchup for Djokovic.

If you want to avoid being accused of having an underlying agenda, then you can link to an old post where you state a similar claim, long before Murray got his gold medal.

Strength of draw is not a strong argument, not unless you also think Indian Wells and Miami are more prestigious than WTF. They had lineups without holes in them. In IW, Roddick was 30th seed and he was also ranked 30 in the world the week before. Doesn't get any better than that.

WTF offers more points and thatís all it offers. I absolutely fail to see how itís more prestigious than the Masters. All the Masters (and GSs) have knockout system and similar fields therefore, as Iíve mentioned already, the risks/stakes are much higher. And if you say ďStrength of draw is not a strong argumentĒ then you lose the argument right there. It is essentially the single most valid argument there is.

WTF also offers five top-10 encounters for those who want to win, which you will not get anywhere else.

Claiming I have lost the argument? I am sorry if I overestimated you. I thought anyone would understand that if Indian Wells have the strongest draw possible, then the draw will no longer be a relevant factor in determining which tournaments are yet more prestigious. You'll have to look at other factors. But it you disagree, please feel free to inform me why you think the OG draw was stronger than the IW one.

Why??? WTF is in fact worth in points even more than the Olympics... You have to beat the best of the best there to take the title... Since when WTF a minor tournament??? You are starting to sound a lot like Shankar...

Sent from my Optimus 2X using Tapatalk 2

The problem with this whole argument is the underlying agenda as always. For example, if either Djokovic or Federer had won the Olympics, then you would have taken this into account as well Ė as either as big a tournament as WTF or perhaps bigger.

But letís take a look anyway - other than the points, what else makes WTF bigger than the Olympics? All the top players apart from Nadal were there at the Olympics. In fact, the semi-final lineups at the Olympics were just as good as WTF; in fact, the line up at the Olympics were better than the WTF one, where we saw Murray vs Djokovic & Federer vs Del Potro. On the other hand, WTF offered Federer vs Murray & Djokovic vs Del Potro. Del Potro is never a good matchup for Djokovic.

If you want to avoid being accused of having an underlying agenda, then you can link to an old post where you state a similar claim, long before Murray got his gold medal.

Strength of draw is not a strong argument, not unless you also think Indian Wells and Miami are more prestigious than WTF. They had lineups without holes in them. In IW, Roddick was 30th seed and he was also ranked 30 in the world the week before. Doesn't get any better than that.

WTF offers more points and thatís all it offers. I absolutely fail to see how itís more prestigious than the Masters. All the Masters (and GSs) have knockout system and similar fields therefore, as Iíve mentioned already, the risks/stakes are much higher. And if you say ďStrength of draw is not a strong argumentĒ then you lose the argument right there. It is essentially the single most valid argument there is.

WTF also offers five top-10 encounters for those who want to win, which you will not get anywhere else.

Claiming I have lost the argument? I am sorry if I overestimated you. I thought anyone would understand that if Indian Wells have the strongest draw possible, then the draw will no longer be a relevant factor in determining which tournaments are yet more prestigious. You'll have to look at other factors. But it you disagree, please feel free to inform me why you think the OG draw was stronger than the IW one.

Everyone here is pulling out arguments based on a fine line from previous contrary posts... First of all, I for one am not saying the Olympics is a minor tournament.. But Emma, you were the one who said WTF is even a lesser tournament than Olympics.. THIS is where I disagree... And it's the same thing all over again... First of all, GS>WTF>Olympics/Masters ... I am not saying that the Olympics is just another 500 tournament, of course it's a big event just as the other MS.. Your argument about the draw at the Olympics is not as valid as you would think.. IW has a bigger draw and all the top guns are at 90% of the MS on tour, so, when you say that the draw is what makes it valid and even more important than WTF that is where you are mistaken, you can have any draw you want but you very unlikely will have the best 8 in the world in the quarter finals. In this tournament only the best of the best meet at WTF and battle to prove who is the rightful best player in the world. So, then we should also assume that IW is better than the Olypmics? and than ANY other Masters?? Because from your post you are saying exactly this and it doesn't hold ground, at least not where I am standing.

I was glad Murray took the gold at the Olympics, I actually like Murray, but not just because Murray won the Olympics we should take this tournament to the next level.. It is what it is... and it was the first major break Murray got before going on to take USO. So, I do understand why every Murray fan are ready to jump anybody who says something about the Olympics, but to be honest USO is by far a greater accomplishment than the Olympics. And you are making it sound like Murray got 2 GSs last year, as if The Olypmics will make everyone forget that Murray did not win ANY tournament last year but the Olympics, USO and 250 points Brisbane...

Now, assuming you are going to reply with your theory about tanking all tournaments cause he had a schedule and a goal that was to take the first GS, I would only say that to be a top dog and to call Murray on the same level as Djokovic, Murray has to be ready to prove he is a consistent player and win tournaments and not just by winning 1 GS and another important event will put him in the same league as Djokovic... _HE is on in the right path, and he will make it, but why and I repeat my question from my old post. Why are you so urgently eager to place Murray in a spot he doesn't deserve yet?

Let's take Nadal and Federer aside, let's say Nadal doesn't count cause he is injured and don't know where his form is and if he is going to return at full speed, let's say that Federer is way past his prime and he is just fighting to stay with the younger guns. Or let's just simply say that both of them are not on the same League as Djokovic for whatever reason, I don't care. You are talking about a 17 GS winner, an 11 GS winner and a 6 GS winner, regardless of their situation right now, you are putting Murray in the same league as Djokovic with just 2 titles in ONE YEAR?? Where are you all coming from? When was the last time Nadal, Federer or Djokovic won ONLY 2 tournaments in one year??

For Federer it was 2002For Nadal it was 2004 (not even last year, missing more than half the season)Djokovic surprisingly enough was in 2010!!!!!!Murray in 2012 and in 2010.

And again... to say Murray is in the same league as Djokovic and that BOTH of them are leading the pack is misleading. Wherever you see it.. and again, Murray in 2013 can be an amazing year for him, but to say he is ahead of the pack? Come on... NOT YET..